riverssong wrote:Until such time that the English language develops a gender-neutral pronoun system, and for as long as the male form remains the accepted default in the English language, I suggest that all further debate of the topic center solely on what might be done to address the underlying linguistic cause at its root, rather than the perceived transgressions of those using an imperfect language to communicate as clearly as they are able.

Wooloomooloo wrote:This is much bigger than all of us now... For the love of god, people - the ad/marketing industry MUST NEVER KNOW WHAT HAPPENED HERE, or we are all DOOMED!!! Therefore, for humanity's sake - the first rule of "Time": You don't talk about "Time"... </sarcasm>

If this was a stealth advertising campaign, it would be one of the most effective stealth advertising campaigns ever!

In my first (buried) post, I speculated that the progression would end on the 31st with the TARDIS landing on the castle.

It would be the best Doctor Who marketing EVER. Way better than that billboard in Williamsburg.

Though, to be fair, marketing effectiveness has to be measured by audience size, as well as by how ensnared the audience is. I can't imagine the number of fanatical page refreshers numbers much more than the low hundreds. Not the most wide-reaching advert.

No, but the viral aftershocks would be pretty cool.

Not that I actually believe that's how it'll end... but it would be nearly as cool as bowties.

My guess is, that you will see a boat appear on the horizon and slowly get bigger. As it passes the wake will create the wave that washes out the castle leaving the sand swept clean. The guy and girl return and sit back to their original spots and the cartoon will start again from the original frame, thereby creating a continuous looping cartoon.

riverssong wrote:Until such time that the English language develops a gender-neutral pronoun system, and for as long as the male form remains the accepted default in the English language, I suggest that all further debate of the topic center solely on what might be done to address the underlying linguistic cause at its root, rather than the perceived transgressions of those using an imperfect language to communicate as clearly as they are able.

You said it, bitch!

Not sure if attack, or agreement.

LOLed anyway.

Mr Moriaty wrote:I hate it when you wake up to find everyone else joined a cult and you missed out

riverssong wrote:Until such time that the English language develops a gender-neutral pronoun system, and for as long as the male form remains the accepted default in the English language, I suggest that all further debate of the topic center solely on what might be done to address the underlying linguistic cause at its root, rather than the perceived transgressions of those using an imperfect language to communicate as clearly as they are able.

Anyway I think we should just complete our full transition into comic 915 now.

I think frame 97 is the best so far. "Complete" castle with head looking right totally beats frame 98 with head looking left. Although the utter chaos of 103 evokes some cosmic ponderings that are unequaled by other frames.

If we're going to do the 915 thing, I suggest we go all the way and group certain frames into periods.I suggest the following split:

000 - 009 : the debut or what? period: when nobody really knew what was going on010 - 023 : the dark period: the darkness in the posts of the thread reached heights during these frames024 - 044 : the sandcastle period: as the sandcastle started to appear, most of the darkness made disappeared.045 - 074 : the period (second dark period): Initially, this was the 'female period' but I soon realised that would be a pleonasm. Also it was a pretty dark time on the thread.075 - 087 : the happiness period: the couple is reunited and again the darkness fades.088 - 105 : the male period: with a climax at frame 103: "the fall of man" frame105 - NOW : the rebuild period (second sandcastle period). Still in progress! How exciting!

My favourite is frame 26, It symbolises more hope than any of the other ones. Also frame 20, because I find woman who shake their hair sexy.

I doubt that any could deny the place of frame 102 and 103; the power of the castle left alone and the fall are apparent to any suitably trained eye. While many would argue that frame 52 is more deserving of praise than frame 51, the addition of text does not add to the plot nearly so much as the quiet contemplation shown in the frame before it. This contemplation is a running theme throughout the work, and far more poignant than any needless words.

Well, taking your cue about contemplation, I find frame 120 to be a far more satisfying frame than 121, as it has an air of blissful ignorance of the sorry state of the leftmost turret over it, where 121 is a more startling and sudden realization.

Hmm suddenly frame 16 is my new favorite. It proves the existence of WATER! Surely this is the most important of all the frames, it sets the scene! We may not even have been certain is was on a beach had 16 not happened. It truly is a majestic frame.

That brings up an important point (important only in the context of conversations that take place while waiting around for events that occur twice per hour) - why is it okay to call a bunch of girls or women "you guys" but it is wrong to refer to one girl or woman as a "guy"? I don't get that.

I also don't get why it's okay to address a girl as "dude", so I'm clearly confused.

It's all in how it's said; calling a group 'you guys has the same connotation be it mostly (or entirely) female as it does when used for an evenly mixed or male-heavy group; it's an informal way of saying 'this group of people'. 'Dude', drawing its pop-culture roots from surfers, feels very laid-back, and is nearly always meant to be non-offensive. 'Guy' and boy/man, however, are used entirely interchangeably, and have a much more definitive 'I am calling you male' connotation. Directly calling a girl a 'guy' is like calling a guy a 'girl': works in some, very specific circumstances, but causes offense in most others.

That said- I am really not offended. I was just a little put out, and didn't want the mistake to continue.

To be honest, I think you're being a bit too sensitive about the whole thing. Your username really isn't that gender-specific - I wouldn't have known you were a girl unless you had said it, and it wasn't like he was calling you a guy in a mean and derogatory way. It really shouldn't matter at all.

I did say I wasn't really offended. In that specific post, I was merely answering belliott4488's question. It really doesn't matter very much, it the long run. I just have issues (which I would rather not discuss) involving childhood bullies, and it bothers me to a minor degree. I was stating my preference, in a way that might generate interesting discussion. I repeat my earlier "does not want flame war. Does not want." I have honestly never before gotten the impression that my username wasn't obviously feminine. Perhaps it's just differing audiences, but most people assume I'm a girl. It was an odd and interesting anomaly, and in my attempts to take up some of the 25-minute breaks, I commented.

Speaking of 25 minute breaks... only 3 minutes until a possible second 'sandcastle only' frame. who's excited? (or the opposite?)

P.S. I am not Randall. I am an initiate of Time. All is measured by the passage of the Newpix.

riverssong wrote:Until such time that the English language develops a gender-neutral pronoun system, and for as long as the male form remains the accepted default in the English language, I suggest that all further debate of the topic center solely on what might be done to address the underlying linguistic cause at its root, rather than the perceived transgressions of those using an imperfect language to communicate as clearly as they are able.

Sunny wrote:I really don't understand this. It's not offensive to anyone but a select few people, it seems - "guys" is just another way of saying "you people" in less syllables. Does it really matter that much?

No, not really. I think "folks" is a perfectly good gender-neutral substitute, though.

Anyway, I thought the comic had ended last night before going to bed, with Cueball finishing the castle and looking around, finding himself alone. Time passed and left him unmatured, still liking sand castles and ball pits, while Megan moved on.

Mr. Munroe wrote:“When I was a kid, I was had an irrationally powerful fear of tsunamis (Etymology-Man would suggest “cymophobia”). I swam in the ocean a lot when I was very young, so waves were a big part of my world. I would fret about tsunamis whenever I was near the coast, and to this day I have occasional nightmares about a wave coming out of nowhere and sweeping me away.”

Ayriannah wrote:I did say I wasn't really offended. In that specific post, I was merely answering belliott4488's question. It really doesn't matter very much, it the long run. I just have issues (which I would rather not discuss) involving childhood bullies, and it bothers me to a minor degree. I was stating my preference, in a way that might generate interesting discussion. I repeat my earlier "does not want flame war. Does not want." I have honestly never before gotten the impression that my username wasn't obviously feminine. Perhaps it's just differing audiences, but most people assume I'm a girl. It was an odd and interesting anomaly, and in my attempts to take up some of the 25-minute breaks, I commented.

Speaking of 25 minute breaks... only 3 minutes until a possible second 'sandcastle only' frame. who's excited? (or the opposite?)

Yeah, I get that about the bullies - all throughout middle school, people would call me "he" and even "it" on purpose, made me a little overly sensitive for a while and caused me to dress very girly for a while too (of course, it didn't work : P). I am pretty bad at names on the Internet, however - after meeting a man named Hillary I just decided that names aren't the best indication of gender anyway.

English has gender-neutral singular pronouns already, it doesn't need more.

If one thought about it for a while, one might come up with an example.

Or if they thought longer, they might come up with two.

How often does one refer to a single specific person without knowing their gender, as opposed to referring to a single non-specific person who could be of either gender, like I just did here? I'm sure the former case is uncommon enough to get by with the words we have. We just need to get people to stop assuming "he" for other-people-on-the-Internet, since that assumption isn't as correct as it was 20 years ago.

riverssong wrote:Until such time that the English language develops a gender-neutral pronoun system, and for as long as the male form remains the accepted default in the English language, I suggest that all further debate of the topic center solely on what might be done to address the underlying linguistic cause at its root, rather than the perceived transgressions of those using an imperfect language to communicate as clearly as they are able.

For me, this is the most fascinating comic since ROVER...I was immediately taken aback by what I felt was a mystery. I had no understanding whatsoever of what he was talking about until I saw the comic changing. Even now, I really am having trouble understanding the point behind this one, but as usual, I am very entertained. It tends to break up a day full of user and hardware issues.

For me, the song I've had stuck in my head this whole time is "Time" by Hootie and the Blowfish."Time, Why you punish me? Like a wave crashing into the shore, you wash away my dreams. Time, Why you walk away? Like a friend with somewhere to go, you left me cryin'

Can you teach me 'bout tomorrow and all the pain and sorrow, Runnin' free? 'Cause tomorrow's just another day, and I don't believe in time."